DIR- GUE Why are non-GUE divers so interested in what GUE does?

[RedSix]

Buhlmann works for millions of dives

Tell this the people how had an "undeserved" hit. Although Bühlmann might look complicated for you, in regards of the complexity of a human body it is extremely simplified.
It is just a model, not a guarantee of not being hit. It maybe works in 99.XXX %, but not in every case. And not always is the reason a PFO. In the end it's throwing dices...

 

[Wibble]

Tell this the people how had an "undeserved" hit. Although Bühlmann might look complicated for you, in regards of the complexity of a human body it is extremely simplified.
It is just a model, not a guarantee of not being hit. It maybe works in 99.XXX %, but not in every case. And not always is the reason a PFO. In the end it's throwing dices...

Buhlmann is a model. It is the most popular and well used model by a long way.

Yes, there's the "undeserved hit", that's the individual diver's predisposition to getting a bend as they're outside of the norm, be that a PFO or other issues. Will Ratio Deco be any better?

 

[RedSix]

Will Ratio Deco be any better?

Has Bühlmann done any better?

 

[Wibble]

Has Bühlmann done any better?

Interesting. To answer that we'd need to have the statistics on Ratio Deco issues.

I'd strongly suggest that Buhlmann is better due to the millions of dives that used it. At least the computers will give you an unequivocal plan to follow. First stop 18m for 1 min, etc., Mathematical, detailed memory and logical reasoning brain not required.

 

[Germie]

Gue moved from ratio deco and deco on the fly in 2010 (when I was introduced with dir/gue) to gue decoplanner (20/80) and nowadays also gue decoplanner (standard still 20 I believe as gf low), pragmatic deco (change the calculated plan into an easy plan to be done by head with wetnotes if your brains don't work anymore), and using a computer.
Pragmatic deco was already teached by iantd in 2011, then I learned it.

What I want to say:
Every dive agency, gue including changed opinions and things during the years. If you have done a gue course in 2010, only bottomtimer, ratio deco, etc, the nowadays courses are different. Maybe in all kind of ways, but it is different then when you did the course in 2010 for example.
Sidemount and ccr are only introduced a few years ago. In 2010 it was dangerous and not needed. But even divers who started with gue or any other dir agency maybe want to know more about ccr and sidemount. That must be done outside the agency. Now it can be done partly inside the agency.
RB80/pscr is not teached a lot anymore. Oh yes, pscr can have a great potential, but also has a lot of disadvantages. For example you plan a 100m dive and then the wind is blowing, so you can't go to that wreck. But you cannot use the bottomgas on pscr on a 30m wreck. With a ccr you still can as the unit mixes 'best mix' out of your diluent bottle (but also have to evaluate the bailouts, a 10/70 is not so good as bottommix bailout at 30m, but you won't die )
Another big disadvantage of the rb80 for deep dives is the weight, toooooo heavy. But also a twin18 is tooo heavy.

I think there comes a time that gue also offers a mCCR course as I see a lot of divers using the Kiss principle near eCCR, even gue divers. And here sidemount ccr is becoming really popular. I was the first in my country with a sidemount CCR, but now there are a lot.

And all dive agencies needs to earn money, so add courses like dpv and dpv cave (started around 2010 I guess) and there will be students. I don't say this is bad, as such courses can be usefull. But I was already diving dual ccr/bo ccr for example before any course started. So I won't do a course, I have invented the way how it works myself

 

[RedSix]

Interesting. To answer that we'd need to have the statistics on Ratio Deco issues.

I'd strongly suggest that Buhlmann is better due to the millions of dives that used it. At least the computers will give you an unequivocal plan to follow. First stop 18m for 1 min, etc., Mathematical, detailed memory and logical reasoning brain not required.

You know how the ratio deco has been developed?

So coming back to the topic of this post, why are you constantly posting non-DIR stuff in the DIR forum? Just to show everybody what a clever guy you are? To show that you have the biggest balls? To show the stupid DIR guys how stupid they are?

 

[ginti]

Because both, computer and/or your brain can / will fail.

I don't think that is the primary reason. Indeed, if that were the only problem, redundancy would solve it.

The real reason is to understand what the computer says and to behave correctly when:
(1) you must NOT follow the computer, for some reasons;
(2) despite you follow the computer, s**t happens;
(3) I can't think about anything else right now, but for sure, there is something else.

Regarding point (1), imagine you have an accident underwater, and you need to resurface. How would you manage it if you have always followed the computer in your life and have no clue how to manage a deco ascent on your own and can not understand the risks of missed and/or reduced duration of obligated deco stop?

Regarding point (2), imagine that you have symptoms of deco illness after the dive. How bad is it? Is it about deep or shallow tissues? Etc.
Or, maybe, the computer is giving some weird information; in such a scenario, a person who doesn't know how to manage an ascent could be in one of these three situations:
{A} if you only have a computer, you would follow the wrong computer;
{B} if you have two, you would probably follow the most conservative, which can, however, lead to dangerous situations (for instance, if the weather is changing for the worse at the surface);
{C} you have several computers, in which case you can isolate the malfunctioning one (still, even with thousands of computers, the problems previously mentioned exist).

If you have an excellent comprehension of how a computer works and the theory behind them, you can manage these scenarios appropriately (and, usually, even prevent them). Furthermore, using the computer would be easier.

Again, GUE isn't against computers; it is for understanding them. Often, when you understand you don't strictly need them... still, they are nice to have, I use one, and all my friends use at least one.

 

[ginti]

Interesting. To answer that we'd need to have the statistics on Ratio Deco issues.

Ratio deco basically gives the same results as Bhulman in the tec1 range.

I am not tec2, so I can't speak for sure, but I think ratio deco isn't used for long or deep dives because it starts giving weird results. People with more experience than me could confirm

@PfcAJ ?

EDIT: by the way, ratio deco isn't anymore the primary way of calculating deco. As @Germie stated, nowadays it is the deco planner.

 

[lermontov]

So coming back to the topic of this post, why are you constantly posting non-DIR stuff in the DIR forum? Just to show everybody what a clever guy you are? To show that you have the biggest balls? To show the stupid DIR guys how stupid they are?

This ^ is why people dont want to engage. If you represent GUE your a terrible ambassador

 

[Wibble]

You know how the ratio deco has been developed?

So coming back to the topic of this post, why are you constantly posting non-DIR stuff in the DIR forum? Just to show everybody what a clever guy you are? To show that you have the biggest balls? To show the stupid DIR guys how stupid they are?

It's proprietary and is probably not even DIR.

Doing It Right would be to choose the best technology and techniques for the job, nowadays that would be computers.

Memories of using slide rules in mathematics classes. Used to be great as you first needed to work out an approximation for the result you'd expect, then you'd work the detail out using the slide rule. Amazingly nobody uses slide rules any longer.